Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Co counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
12
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
196 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
38 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Visoski
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Espinosa
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Opposing counsel |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 1004 (Stipulation) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Tracy Chapell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Lawrence Visoski | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rule 29 Argument | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and a question asked by the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Pre-sentencing argument | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Patrick McHugh | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Kelly Maguire | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Dawson regarding a residence and inconsistent statements. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding supplemental jury instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of David Rodgers | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court ruling on the 'attorney witness issue' regarding the defense case-in-chief. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding Maxwell's sentencing or appeal points concerning her role in the conspiracy. | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government's Exhibit 296R | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Extension of Jury Deliberations | New York City Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Defendant's Exhibit MA1 into evidence under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conference between Defense and Government | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial Resumption | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Michael Dawson | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and admissibility of testimony for conspiracy counts. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013507.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Rodgers is being cross-examined about their knowledge of Eva Dubin's appearance during a pregnancy. The questioning then shifts to identifying a specific flight, number 878, from Teterboro to Palm Beach on August 18, 1996, using a flight log entered as Government Exhibit 662R.
DOJ-OGR-00013505.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the case number). The questioning focuses on the witness's knowledge of Eva Dubin, her marriage to Glenn Dubin, and flights taken with her children, Selena and Jordan. Notably, the testimony confirms that Jeffrey Epstein was Selena Dubin's godfather.
DOJ-OGR-00013485.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers. The questioning focuses on an unnamed assistant of Epstein, confirming she traveled frequently with him, shared a romantic relationship, and had the same first name as another individual known as 'Jane'. The witness clarifies that despite the shared name, the assistant and Jane are two different people.
DOJ-OGR-00013484.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a portion of a trial. A lawyer, Mr. Everdell, is cross-examining a witness, Mr. Rodgers, and requests that both the witness and the jury view evidence labeled LV3A and LV3B, which are photos. Mr. Everdell specifically instructs the witness that he knows the person's name in the photos but should not say it aloud in court.
DOJ-OGR-00013483.jpg
This document is page 205 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by attorney Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on challenging Rodgers' memory of a meeting with a person named 'Jane' on November 11, 1996, establishing that the date is derived solely from flight logs which only list a first name—a name shared by others in Epstein's circle, including an assistant. The page concludes with the introduction of sealed exhibits LV3A and LV3B to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013460.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on transportation arrangements, confirming the witness handled their own, and their communications in the 2000s, specifically confirming they used cell phones to discuss flights and spoke with an individual named Sarah Kellen frequently enough to have her number saved.
DOJ-OGR-00013450.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of a pilot named Rodgers in the case involving Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on the lack of rules regarding the pilot's interaction with passengers and other staff, as well as the logistics of leaving the cockpit to use the restroom on a Gulfstream jet during long flights to Europe.
DOJ-OGR-00013449.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of pilot David Rodgers (filed Aug 10, 2022). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell questions Rodgers about flight protocols on Epstein's Gulfstream and Boeing aircraft, specifically confirming that while cockpit doors were closed, Epstein never explicitly instructed Rodgers that he could not leave the cockpit or mingle with passengers.
DOJ-OGR-00013439.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes Mr. Rodgers' employment history as a pilot for Jeffrey Epstein, beginning in 1991, and confirms that he hired his friend, Larry Visoski, as a co-pilot. The transcript clarifies that their roles reversed in late 2004, with Visoski becoming chief pilot, and that Rodgers continued to work for Epstein until 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00013438.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. Attorney Ms. Comey requests that the jury be directed to Government Exhibit 14, specifically to a child's name and date of birth entry. After receiving no objection from opposing counsel Mr. Everdell and approval from the court, Ms. Comey concludes her direct examination of the witness, Rodgers.
DOJ-OGR-00013417.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The witness confirms details of two specific flights: one on May 12, 1997, from Santa Fe, NM to Van Nuys, CA with Jeffrey Epstein as the only passenger, and another, Flight 1105, on May 3, 1998, from Palm Beach, FL to Teterboro, NJ with passengers Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and an individual identified only as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00013415.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where a witness named Rodgers testifies about a flight on November 15, 1996. The witness confirms that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were passengers on this flight from Teterboro, New Jersey, to Columbus, Ohio. The testimony also identifies Juan Alessi as Jeffrey Epstein's house manager in Palm Beach for approximately 12 years.
DOJ-OGR-00013411.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge confirms with attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell that there are no outstanding matters before instructing for the jury to be brought in and for the witness, Mr. Rodgers, to take the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00013409.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It details a discussion between the Judge, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding a specific jury instruction for a witness named Rodgers. The Judge agrees to instruct the jury that alleged physical contact between the witness, Epstein, and Maxwell in New Mexico was not 'illegal sexual activity,' and the parties agree to discuss a separate 'Rule 412' issue at sidebar.
DOJ-OGR-00013408.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the afternoon session of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests edits to a limiting instruction for the jury regarding an upcoming witness, specifically changing the phrase 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact' regarding interactions with Jeffrey Epstein in New Mexico. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense confer and agree on the language before the judge approves it.
DOJ-OGR-00013403.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Witness Rodgers testifies about a logbook containing initials 'JE' (Jeffrey Epstein) and 'GM' (Ghislaine Maxwell) before the court breaks for lunch. After the jury leaves, defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises a procedural objection regarding the government's practice of referring to other flight passengers simply as 'and others' without naming them.
DOJ-OGR-00013394.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Rodgers, identified as a pilot, testifies to the authenticity of their flight logbook, stating entries were made within 30 minutes of flights. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) successfully moves to admit the logbook as evidence (Exhibit 662 under seal and 662-R redacted) with no objection from the defense (Mr. Everdell).
DOJ-OGR-00013388.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers by an attorney, Ms. Comey. The questioning centers on Rodgers' recollection of conversations with Ms. Maxwell regarding the timeline of her residential moves after her father's death in November 1991. The transcript includes legal objections by another attorney, Mr. Everdell, on the grounds of foundation and hearsay, and subsequent rulings by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013386.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript featuring a sidebar discussion during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) argues that evidence of Maxwell's father's death and her subsequent financial decline—followed by Epstein buying her a townhouse—establishes a financial motive for her participation in Epstein's crimes. The defense (Mr. Everdell) objects, claiming the events occurred three years before the alleged conspiracy and are irrelevant.
DOJ-OGR-00013385.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers describes a large apartment in Manhattan, located at 59th Street near Columbus Circle, and testifies that Ms. Maxwell moved from there to a studio apartment in late 1991 or early 1992. The testimony is interrupted by an objection from an attorney, Mr. Everdell, regarding the relevance of the questioning, which is then debated in court.
DOJ-OGR-00013292.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT), a government attorney (Mr. Rohrbach), and a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) regarding a minor issue with the fourth witness, identified as Mr. Rogers. The parties agree to resolve the issue during a break, and the court adjourns until the jury is present.
DOJ-OGR-00013274.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about attorney-client privilege. An unnamed speaker outlines three reasons why certain materials should not be considered privileged, including that they were intended for a third party or would lose privilege if shown to the government. The judge acknowledges the argument but notes a prior ruling, after which counsel for the government (Ms. Moe) and other lawyers (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Pagliuca) indicate they have no further points on the matter at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00010253.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on March 11, 2022. It captures a discussion between the court, Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell regarding a prior interview with an unnamed male subject. The conversation centers on clarifying what was said during that interview, particularly the subject's reaction to personal questions, and the court ultimately rules that the subject's motivation for speaking to the press after a trial is not relevant to the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00010250.jpg
This document is page 35 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues before the Court that a male subject (likely a juror or witness) lacks credibility because his statements about not expecting to be known contradict his lengthy discussions with a journalist named Lucia from The Independent about the consequences of coming forward. The defense contends the subject is 'talking out of both sides of his mouth' regarding his anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00010249.jpg
This document is page 34 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a male subject (likely a juror) gave inconsistent statements regarding his understanding of the publicity consequences of an interview with a journalist named Lucia, specifically in relation to answers provided on a jury questionnaire. Everdell highlights the contradiction of the subject claiming he did not expect to become known worldwide as a victim of sexual abuse while simultaneously speaking to journalists.
Interpretation of a sentencing guideline
Mr. Everdell argues that the commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative and interpretative, not merely a recitation of Congressional thought, and should be considered by the court.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding FedEx invoices and their maintenance in the regular course of business.
Cross Examination
Questioning regarding whether the witness saw any inappropriate activity during 30 years of employment.
Jury Instructions/Verdict Sheet Language
Discussion regarding the phrasing of Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six, specifically regarding the age of victims and the name 'Jane'.
TECS Reports
Confirmation that Aznaran ran three traveler reports in the TECS system for Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer.
Stipulation of facts and admission of exhibits
Discussion regarding the admission of exhibits DH1-DH4, J2, A5, and stipulations regarding UK property records.
Jury Instructions / Technical Issues
Discussion regarding the definition of 'entice' and citations of case law.
Scheduling of Defense Case
Discussion regarding the timeline for the defense to present their case and the scheduling of the charging conference.
Jury Instructions / Case Law
Discussion regarding the use of the word 'dominant' in jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. 2421, citing United States v. An Soon Kim.
Jury Instructions regarding New Mexico Law
Argument that specific sexual activity was not illegal under New Mexico law because it lacked force or coercion, and the jury instruction should reflect this.
Jury Instructions/Charge Language
Discussion regarding the specific wording of sex trafficking charges and conspiracy counts.
Limiting Instruction Edits
Discussion regarding changing wording in jury instructions from 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact'.
Cross-examination regarding flights and Les Wexner
Questioning regarding flights to Columbus, Ohio and the relationship between Epstein and Les Wexner.
Admissibility of property records and need for an additio...
Mr. Everdell discusses with the Court newly obtained property records for Stanhope Mews, which he intends to use to impeach a witness's deposition testimony about their residence. He argues that despite the government's objection, additional factual development is needed, possibly requiring another witness, to counter the government's argument.
Issue with fourth witness
Mr. Everdell informs the court of a small issue regarding the fourth witness (Mr. Rogers) and requests time to confer with the government.
Direct Examination regarding search video
Discussion of Government Exhibit 296 showing a property search.
Exhibit Identification
Inquiry about trial mark for the 1996 London home sale agreement.
Procedural point on cross-examination
Everdell raises a concern about the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them during direct examination.
Admission of Exhibit RS-1
Defense offers RS-1 for identification; prosecution agrees if under seal; accepted by Court.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding flight rules, mingling with passengers, and cockpit procedures.
Jury Instruction Dispute
Discussion regarding how to answer a jury question about conspiracy in Counts One and Three.
Motion for Acquittal
Motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) regarding insufficiency of evidence in the S2 indictment.
Objection to scope of questioning
Argument regarding the relevance of Maxwell's father's death and her housing history.
Exhibit 913 Privacy
Requesting privacy interests for photos on a desk.
Legal definitions
Verbal exchange regarding case law and definitions for jury instructions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity